609:@ Rotatingastrothing As far as I know Dr Taylor received far more abuse than his bullys (according to the sources it was more than just noticeable, some described it as a "tweetstorn" of abuse). It is simply wrong to say that Dr Taylor got "one tweet using an mild insult" there was a lot of abuse going on which every source agrees, the problem is that twitter is incredibly fast and most posts towards Dr Taylor are friendly now. So we should trust the sources that all describe it as a lot of abuse. Also his bullys got abused for bullying someone and insulting someone. I dont know if his critics got abused at all as far as I know they were engaged in debates about their opinions. The abuse that Dr Taylor received was, not debatable as "justified". Criticism towards him is debatable and seen by some as justified but the abuse is not. Getting angry with people that abused and insulted others is justified and a normal reaction to injustice, until certain levels of course(death threads are ofc not and I am glad it didn't get this far). Treating the abuse Dr Taylor received equal to the abuse his abusers received is not logical or fair.
1047:
was because of her criticism?) We had an almost perfect article yesterday now its feminist propaganda again. "some saw it as abuse" when Dr Taylor received personal insults including "Jerk" and "Asshole" and someone tweeted that they want him fired, yet Rose got "abused" with those tweets (again POV). This is simply not true. And about the deletion: It was in most news and an important
Backlash against third wave feminism and against sexism. A lot of people pointed out that this would not have happened to a woman no matter how unprofessionally she would have dressed this IS a sexism issue. Tl:DR The article is now way more biased than it was yesterday, and there is so much wrong now that I think we need to reset all the changes, since people even deleted C.H.S tweets about the Vatican that represent the opinion of a lot of people.
1511:
criticised. Nobody discusses the "shirstorm" that is connected with this one (where feminists wear shirts made by oppressed women), nobody states that the critics/radical feminists were mostly from the USA where nudity is a taboo while the people in Europe deal completely different with this and that this might be a cultural reaction. Instead we give Rose a whole line about how she was told to kill herself and do not give Dr Taylor half a line about the people who called him "scum" "jerk" "asshole" and who wanted him fired. And you act like you are not pushing a POV.
21:
1495:
those people are because of the views the express but ok, lets act like it were just some random people its not like
Knowledge has become highly biased and infested by SJWs its not like the Knowledge page openly calls "white people" a social construct and "black people" an ethnicity, oh wait it does. This page was good and truthful a certain point but since people pushed a certain political point its completely worthless now. Maybe ask yourself why you did this and if this is what Knowledge should be.
1603:
dare to compare the quote towards M.T which was constructive criticism with the "kill yourself?" This is so obviously written to make it look less bad what happened to M.T than what happened to R.E. Honestly I am shocked we could have used the "ass hole" quote towards taylor and the "educate yourself" quote towards R.E but I guess that would not be sensationalist enough, oh yeah tahts why the media didnt do it aswell. This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's birthday.
541:
something that he needs to apologise for, a radical feminist point of view most people do not agree with, and that some people are still rightful offended. Also it is now missing that the big public
Backlash was caused by Dr Taylor's apology and the anger about the bullying he has received. While the initial bullies get the first sentence of the Backlash piece pointing out how they were bullied for bulling a scientist this just doesn't make any sense.
624:
These sites do not use the word abuse, this is a term used in opinion columns. The definition of abuse in this case is "cruel, violent, or unfair treatment of someone". I do not see how it is possible to use this word without it appearing that
Knowledge endorses that critics were cruel, violent, or unfair. That some commentators saw the treatment as cruel, violent, or unfair is undoubted and the article should reflect that.
1670:
extreme level of dishonesty and POV you push here or if you really think this somehow accurately describes what happened? This quote was not picked because it describes the majority of tweets and I think you know it. But why am I even trying. You have your reasons to push this insulting and misogynistic narrative and I am simply mentally unable to understand why, you are the majority in this article so you win.
94:
556:
public statement before the ESA approves of this it is likely the ESA encouraged him to make the apology or at least allowed him to in case he really though his shirt was inappropriate. Either way presenting it as a choice is an admission of guilt while most people do not agree that his shirt was sexist or that there was something he had to apologise for.
234:
feminist" (also because in the case of the latter there is no such idiom) in favour of neutral, descriptive language. The reader should not be able to discern a "for-or-against" point of view in the article, and unfortunately your personal point of view comes through all too clearly, which it shouldn't. The article can certainly quote, in proportion (see
1858:
1775:
643:
Taylor was "criticised" then we need to find a weaker word than that for Rose
Eveleth. But right now we say she got abused and Dr Taylor got criticised and insulted, this is misleading and unfair. I think its a good desription in the last sentence "some saw as abuse" I think we can use something similar for Rose Eveleth.
455:. I saw you added something along the lines 'some people have been sent death threats'. When I went to the article, the headline was 'Woman sent death threats' and didn't mention any one besides her. So I've tweaked that. But otherwise, I'd say some good edits. Oh but where did you get 'planetary scientist'?
1839:
Quoting via embedding is problematic for various technical reasons, including a risk of link rot at the page we list as a source and the possibility that some (stricter than default) browser security policies may preclude its display. We should not depend on such a quote. It would be much better to
1494:
Edit: moved This was I think the 7th backlash against radical feminists this year and you try to cover this up, by simply being "some commentators" as if someone who says that certain ethnicity's are worse than others would not be called a "racist" instead of "some commentator". You know exactly who
1459:
in the article and I have removed similar wording once already. I am not removing it again right now because I would rather have a thriving discussion here on the talk page than an edit war in the article. You mention another page, but do not link it, so I do not know what you're talking about. In
1313:
I'm putting the specific statement back and citing the source. Let's discuss why we shouldn't have that here. The NPR article specifically states that "criticism quickly spread, particularly after science writers Ed Yong and Rose
Eveleth tweeted about it". The others mentioned in Feltman's article
1046:
The article was so good yesterday now someone AGAIN changed the fact that Rose called Dr Taylor an asshole into "tweet asking her to kill herself as a result of her criticism of Dr Taylor's shirt" This is POV. (How do you know she was NOT told to kill herself because of the insult? How do you know it
657:
Ah OK, that's fair. I've changed abuse to "tweets asking her to kill herself" as that is accurate and doesn't editorialise. I agree that calling these death threats is not accurate (as one editor changed them to) and I think if we use abuse anywhere it should be presented as an opinion. I think it is
540:
The edit of the "Public
Apology" and the "Backlash" are extremely in favour of the radical feminist point of view. Not only was the "forced to apologise" edited out (although most references treat it that way), the sentence "Many of those who complained accepted his apology" implys Dr Taylor has made
525:
OK, made a few more minor edits to remove POV stuff and add the
Guardian article (minus a direct reference to the lagnuage used). The article seems in better shape now and hopefully is less POV so I'll leave it for now. I am a tad uncomfortable with the use of the term "death threat" as the tweets do
474:
and made a mistake saying it refered to the comment (it refers to the spacecraft). I added the ASA statement to the bit about reaction to critics but you are correct that the
Jezebel article only refers to one person. I have seen more abusive posts but can't indicate that without original research. I
1619:
The issue of differing cultural norms, particularly the difference in attitudes towards nudity may be an important and overlooked topic for this article. Do any outside sources mention it? While it is interesting that many of the sources criticizing Taylor seem to be US-based and nearly all of his
1528:
This was what I was talking about the shirtstorm that often got connected to the one we were talking about. There is just a lot missing and there is a pretty obvious agenda pushed when people delete what happened to Dr. Taylor several times to make it look less bad than waht happened to R.E although
1356:
out of the page out of an abundance of caution regarding plagiarism, since quotes would look funny and the names alone are minimal basic facts. As for Ed Yong, I recall having seen a specific mention of his tweet, but I don't recall where. On a side note, thanks for finally coming to the talk page
435:
and to comments from the astronomy writer Phil Plait. I also added citations to more articles in support of Dr Taylor. I cleaned up the first paragraph which included unattributed text from a Boris
Johnson column and changed the description of Dr Taylor to planetary scientist as this is more fitting
475:
do worry that the article lacks context as to why people were complaining (sexist culture in academia, underrepresentation of women) but it is difficult to find a source that isn't an opinion piece. Also I'm uncomfortable with the use of "abuse" in the last paragraph as this may be considered PoV.--
233:
column is an opinion piece, not a news story, and is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy. You should be looking for how opponents are typically described in press coverage, not op-eds. Avoid characterizations and freighted language like "radical feminist" and "factual
129:
I see you have removed "radical feminist". This is not an insulting term and also used by members of this group to describe themselves (radfems). I think It is important to keep it in, because the origin of the dispute otherwise seems to be completely random. Also this behaviour was widly denounced
579:
Changed "abuse" of Taylor to "firestorm". This is what CNN a neutral website referred to it as. The only other non-opinion column I can find that refers to his treatment is the Daily Mail and Guardian using the word "furore". The person who made this edit equated one tweet using an mild insult to
1602:
You are kidding me right now? We do not use primary sources because they are less reliable (???) than what the media says? We do not write the truth if we find it we only repeat popular media opinions? I can only include the insults if a big enough media company has talked about it first? And you
555:
Also I have seen someone removed the "forced apology" because they assumed it was a choice, most sources view this apology as a reaction to the outrage that happened before and that flooded his tweet (explaining his apology as "he was bullied into apologising"), seeing as Dr Taylor can not make a
1352:. I had understood NPR's phrasing to mean that those were the first to object who had any notability. In particular, several sources have Rose Eveleth's tweet, complete with datestamp of 12 November, so she does have a verifiable claim to priority over most of the crowd. I had previously kept
623:
You make numerous reference to the people who criticised Taylor as "bullies" and his treatment as "abuse". Please cite a news site (not an opinion column) which states that this was abuse. I have cited three news sources (one right-wing, one neutral, one left-wing) which use furore or firestorm.
153:
its hard to tell now because if you search for #shirtstorm you will mostly find women and men who disagree. But saying it was mostly women who took offence is an assumption and I do not think it can be hold. I have also added the description "factual Feminist" to Christina H. Sommers, I have not
1669:
Just read it again, now its only criticism that M.T has received although most sources talk about "abuse" a "tweetstorm" a "firestorm" etc. A very well picked quote was added to make M.T critics look reasonable, the "kill yourself" quote was left with R.E.. I just wonder if you are aware of the
1510:
Rose got a full line in the text about the criticism she got even mentioning the "kill yourself" tweet as if this was in any way relevant to the story at all while all the insults towards Dr. Taylor have been removed twice (I have posted them and cited them) he was, according to Knowledge, just
697:
I've changed the number of money raised by the indegogo project after three days to the correct amount 17000$ also added amount of backers for transparency and sourced it. Further I have changed the section stating that rampant sexism was pointed out to it being a claim rather than fact as per
642:
I think I might have been not clear enough. I said we can not treat the way Dr Taylor was treated the same way Rose Eveleth was treated. (Because of the reasons I stated above) If we say she got abused we need to find a stronger word than that to describe what happened to Dr Taylor if we say Dr
1543:
While that scandal is certainly amusing, this article is about a specific Twitter incident. Are you saying that the same hashtag was used for that? Back on topic, if you check the article, we currently have two sources supporting the criticism of Rose Eveleth, although I would be in favor of
133:
The people who were offended by the shirt were members of a certain group connected by a world-view and an ideology they share. I also think its important to keep in the "factual feminist" description of Christina Hoff Sommers who uses it herself to distance herself from the new radicals. Also
469:
Thanks, I used planetary scientist as it describes someone who works on Solar System science as this work is often a blend of astrophysics and geology/minerology etc. Scientist is a perfectly good term. I included the wrong reference for the "sexy but not easy" statement, this is correct
367:
After thinking a bit, we need to find who actually first complained about the now-infamous shirt and either describe those people as whatever they call themselves or give credit where credit is due and name them explicitly. Anyone here know a source for who actually started this mess?
301:
Now the stance of it in the reliable sources is another matter which may need to be physically examined, but the term does exist and you saying it doesn't doesn't negate the fact that it does. Even so if giving you the fact that it's an op ed, it could be used by the nature of
348:
And I've just changed it to "some radical feminists", complete with wikilink and "citation needed" that it is actually radical feminists involved after someone else tagged "some people" as weasel words. Then I come here and think "oh great... we have come full circle"
130:
and saying it was just "some women" is throwing half of the worlds population under the bus (imagine saying "some -members of a big group- think its ok to do things -radical members of said group- do")you also erase male members who identify as radical feminists.
175:. Moreover, no reliable published source has referred to those who objected to the shirt as "radical feminists", nor has any evidence been adduced that this episode has caused a backlash against "radical feminism", so the usage of these terms likewise violates
1061:
I brought back yesterdays version. If I deleted any useful changes I am sorry. The amount of useful references that were deleted by others as well the biased interpretation of why Rose got the tweet telling her to kill herself were really contra productive.
975:
criteria. Right now the article is not good enough in my opinion, but remember that the notability criteria do not apply to the content of the article. So your argument that the "article is ephemeral nonsense" cannot be a reason to delete the article for
658:
also fair as this shows the content of some (two) of the comments she recieved paired with the content of the insult she directed against Taylor. Note anpther editor has just removed the content of her insult as it is from Twitter which is not an RS. --
1385:
I did not say that it would not be helpful, only that duplicating the entire phrase without a quotation was a little too close to plagiarism for my comfort. You're supporting its use well, and in any case, if it does cross the line, I didn't add it.
190:
because you have drawn the parallel yourself; it isn't mentioned in the published sources. If you wish, feel free to quote someone who has likened these events to each other, or include wikilinks to the Knowledge articles on these controversies in a
297:. The fact that a source may be biased in one way does not equate its unreliable nature or the fact that it could be usable in its presence stance. Additionally, the fact that 'radical feminist' doesn't exist is absolutely out of the question.
148:
I have now changed the description back to "radical feminist" from "some people (mostly women). This is an event that has sparked on twitter if you look at the initial tweet you see there are about the same amount of men and women who agree
1333:
which is not supported by the source, as it implies that those two people were the first/only ones to object to it. I don't mind us mentioning those two specifically, but the criticism was obviously far more widespread than just them.
1689:
I just noticed that Taylor's public apology has been uncited all this time. We have a number of sources to support it, which should we use? I'll open the discussion and see what other editors say before I propose one.
856:
mission? I'm on the fence about this, so I thought I'd open up a discussion. I will say that I'd hate to see everything people lose their shit over on Twitter on a given week becomes the subject of a Knowledge article.
702:
further contemplating removing mention of "death threats" there as there are no reliable sources (Jezebel is not a reliable source and furthermore non of the tweets in the article contain any threats)
595:
Worried my previous edit ignores the views of people who thought this was "abuse". Hence I have added a reference to the Boris Johnson column indicating that some saw the critics behaviour as abuse.--
1544:
dropping Jezebel from the article entirely and just relying on the BBC. Rose Eveleth is quite important, since most sources cite her as the first to complain about Taylor's wearing the shirt.
1719:
and related templates for references, since they not only generate nice citations that fit in with the rest of the article, but place metadata into the HTML that might be useful for someone.
1126:, which is very definitely a biography of a living person. This is a contentious topic and is very likely something he would prefer to put behind him. We must be extra careful about
958:
215:
can I include this in the description? Btw a factual feminist is as far as I understand a feminist that builds their feminism on facts and not on feelings, they back up their claims.
672:
I think your edit was really good, I added a few sources and changed the plural but I think we managed to get a pretty accurate description of what happened :) Well done everyone!
923:
springs to mind. Knowledge does not erect a memorial to every bad-day-at-the-office, no matter how many tweets ensued. Technically, we might replace this page with a redirect to
750:
1646:) belongs in the thread above, where you originally had it, since it is about the issue being discussed in that thread. I was asking you to move your second comment (
1529:
this is not how most sources reflect it, in fact she is so unimportant that just one site mentions the criticism she got I think (Jezebel? correct me if I am wrong).
526:
not imply the commenter is going to take action but as they are described as that in the source I will leave it for now (I don't want to use scare quotes).--
264:
Thank you for your explanations, I now see what was wrong with my original article. I will try my best to avoid the mistakes I have made in my future work.
962:
242:
169:"Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium, and so its use is incompatible with the principles set out in
508:
1119:
993:
104:
391:
325:""Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium". Really? Someone had better inform the authors of the
398:
I am just pointing this out, I have some but not a lot of experience volunteering for wikis or encyclopedias, so I am refraining from editing it.
826:
1840:
have a source that actually quotes that in its own HTML. I believe that we have such sources for at least Rose Eveleth's initial complaint.
1823:
Glad to hear @mggtTaylor recognized his mistake & apologized (live stream isn't working for me) and we can both move along with our lives.
493:
is a thing too. Also, seeing The Guardian source, could you quote where you are seeing this 'sexy but easy' thing? I'm simply not seeing it.
809:
751:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2834451/Philae-comet-probe-scientist-embroiled-sexism-row-shirt-featuring-scantily-clad-women.html
1650:) to here, although I referred to it by timestamp rather than the text. I apologize for causing confusion. Please delete this comment (
848:
I know this has been all over the internet and in a few newspapers, but in the long term, does this incident really rise to the level of
1989:
1967:
1937:
1898:
1865:
1841:
1805:
1782:
1741:
1720:
1691:
1655:
1625:
1589:
1545:
1469:
1419:
1387:
1371:"Science writers" is helpful because a) it particularly describes those writers' focus and b) it provides context for their commentary.
1358:
1315:
1158:
1139:
369:
350:
1451:
and having it in the article leads to your argument. You are correct that we do not refer to people as "racist" because that violates
896:
I seem to keep wanting to take the opposing side. I argue that we should wait for further developments. More facts = better article. --
436:
than astrophysicist. Also changed medium of apology from television to webcast and added reference to the sexy but not easy comment.--
330:
739:
471:
1804:
doesn't mention so in text. It may be in the video, but it would be nice to have a textual source for this to ease verification.
1573:
904:
171:
1138:. We need to have every statement accurately and reliably sourced, every "i" dotted, and every "t" crossed. Let's do this.
808:
In order to avoid over tagging (there were 3 and it's only a short article), I have put the multiple issues tag on the page.
791:
on the article page. Please try to base the article on secondary sources, and use as few primary sources as possible, as per
1830:
1762:
1376:
1339:
761:
289:
Actually Rrburke, you've made a few mistakes in your analysis. The TIME piece doesn't seem to be an op ed, and you saying
1560:
The entire second paragraph in the Background section currently describes criticism of Taylor, including a lengthy quote
1348:
I've crawled through all the diffs once already and I'm not actually sure how we ended up with that wording. NPR states
1023:
Twitter wars like this start too often and disappear too quickly to merit pages. If anything, the need for downsizing of
1988:
to avoid having seven words in a row directly taken from a source. The current text just feels like plagiarism to me.
663:
633:
600:
585:
531:
516:
489:
Go ahead and correct what you see are mistakes and I'll intervene if I believe that you are out of policy or guideline.
480:
441:
432:
509:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-science-are-annoyed-at-rosetta-mission-scientists-clothing
1588:
sources describe the abusive criticism of Taylor you claim? We need those before we can mention it in the article.
1525:
728:
392:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-simulate-sex-crucifixes-while-decrying-pope-francis-1474898
897:
134:
Shirtstorm doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would somehow refer to the -Gates that came before and came after this.
1331:
Taylor's choice of clothing became a subject of controversy after drawing criticism from Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth
100:
1314:
are tweets from the next day, fitting under "others expressed similar views". Please discuss if you disagree.
1826:
1758:
1372:
1335:
862:
659:
629:
596:
581:
527:
512:
476:
437:
1993:
1971:
1941:
1902:
1869:
1845:
1809:
1786:
1745:
1724:
1695:
1659:
1629:
1593:
1562:"because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display"
1549:
1473:
1423:
1391:
1362:
1319:
1162:
1143:
1123:
924:
699:
373:
354:
177:
110:
51:
1157:
While a number of the cited sources read like opinion pieces, only one is clearly so marked at the source.
1461:
334:
1176:
In the Background section, in describing who first took offense, we've gone through a number of phrases:
306:. The fact that we should describe disputes and not engage in them however is something that I agree on.
1932:
That's a good question. Do we have any sources that say one way or the other? Do we agree on removing
1350:"criticism quickly spread, particularly after science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth tweeted about it"
20:
772:
1024:
1020:
977:
972:
946:
1028:
883:
703:
93:
1621:
1572:
relevant, since it does describe part of the backlash, although it may simply be an example of the
1452:
1032:
887:
880:
858:
853:
707:
399:
303:
65:
1923:
1675:
1608:
1565:
1534:
1516:
1500:
1082:
1067:
1052:
1001:
932:
677:
648:
614:
561:
546:
498:
460:
417:
403:
311:
269:
220:
159:
139:
31:
740:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt
625:
472:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt
451:
I've tweaked a few of your edits. Blogs and Twitter are not rs for Knowledge, and please don't
1713:
1581:
1577:
1131:
950:
920:
872:
849:
395:
255:
202:
79:
35:
1821:
Look toward the bottom of the article — it quotes (via embedding) Eveleth's tweet which says
1576:. Your references, at least that I could find with a history search, are links to tweets.
421:
407:
1448:
1277:
1103:
984:
834:
816:
799:
326:
298:
294:
150:
1444:
1135:
452:
236:
1197:
1127:
762:
http://skullsinthestars.com/2014/11/18/slurstorm-and-the-flaws-in-shirtstorm-arguments/
490:
193:
46:
41:
27:
1919:
1671:
1604:
1530:
1512:
1496:
1265:
a source clearly naming Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth as initially objecting to the shirt
1210:"some people (mostly women)" after a user pointed out that some men also objected in
1096:
1092:
1078:
1063:
1048:
1016:
997:
954:
928:
916:
792:
673:
644:
626:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion
610:
557:
542:
494:
456:
433:
http://jezebel.com/woman-gets-death-threats-for-tweeting-about-disliking-a-1658337612
413:
307:
265:
216:
186:
155:
135:
1887:
Taylor's choice of clothing became a subject of controversy after drawing criticism
1584:
source and its use on Knowledge is limited due to its dubious reliability. Do any
1412:
788:
251:
198:
57:
1526:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/feminist-t-shirt-sweatshop_n_6094722.html
1290:
finding a source for "radical feminists" (probably an improvement, but less clear)
729:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/13/living/matt-taylor-shirt-philae-rosetta-project/
1207:; this version also named Rose Eveleth, but did not cite a source for that detail
1122:
seems to be that this should be merged and the most logical place to merge it is
154:
resolved the deleting of the other -Gates because I think it is not as distinct.
1099:
980:
876:
830:
812:
795:
511:
7th or 8th para. Given this is an opinion piece I'm uncertain how to quote it.--
211:
Most people have called the aggressors "feminist" like in this new time article
431:
I've added references to the reaction, to the abuse suffered by one journalist
1465:
1961:
Rose Eveleth, an online journalist, received criticism as well as a tweet ...
1699:
212:
580:
the hundreds of highly abusive tweets the critics of Taylor have recieved.--
915:
The article is ephemeral nonsense, and I'm hoping someone will launch the
1918:, or of him wearing the shirt at the time of making a public statement.
246:), people who are "for or against", but the article should be seeking to
291:
nd is seeking to propound a particular point of view on the controversy.
181:. As for "factual feminist", I haven't any idea what one is or might be.
1272:"radical feminists" after I had seen it mentioned on the talk page and
1408:
entirely, because having that in the article is almost begging for a
773:
https://skullsinthestars.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/slurstorm2.jpg
1997:
1975:
1945:
1927:
1906:
1873:
1849:
1834:
1813:
1790:
1766:
1749:
1728:
1679:
1663:
1654:) after moving your first comment back to its original location.
1633:
1612:
1597:
1553:
1538:
1520:
1504:
1477:
1427:
1395:
1380:
1366:
1343:
1323:
1252:
side note: this is where I found the article in NPOV disputes and
1166:
1147:
1107:
1086:
1071:
1056:
1036:
1005:
988:
966:
936:
909:
891:
866:
838:
820:
803:
711:
681:
667:
652:
637:
618:
604:
589:
565:
550:
535:
520:
502:
484:
464:
445:
377:
358:
338:
315:
273:
259:
224:
206:
163:
143:
1460:
any case, that is a different article that needs to have its own
1825:
This turns the primary source into a (usable) secondary source.
1736:
is informal language. Perhaps we should drop it and simply say
1490:
Possible unbalanced treatment of initial and backlash criticism
88:
15:
1077:
None of the references are of encyclopedic value. Removed.
898:
396:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-topless-femen-protestors-s
1642:
OK, it seems I was not clear enough. Your first comment (
184:
Drawing the comparison to other "-gate"s etc is a form of
1854:
I have found such a source and added it to the article.
1802:
Rose Eveleth expressed appreciation for Taylor's apology.
1685:
Which source do we use for the text of Taylor's apology?
953:
as stated above. I agree that it should be proposed for
871:
I agree that this article doesn't meet the standards of
151:
https://twitter.com/roseveleth/status/532538957490561024
1357:
and I apologize if I may have come across as uncivil.
1307:
1300:
1294:
1287:
1281:
1273:
1266:
1259:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1229:
1223:
1217:
1211:
1204:
1193:
1015:
I don't really agree. I think this article falls under
386:
Link in Christina H. Sommers' tweet is broken (cut off)
73:
1620:
defenders European, mentioning that in the article is
1228:
side note: the mention of Rose Eveleth was removed in
1965:
Rose Eveleth received criticism including a tweet ...
1738:
colourful shirt depicting scantily-clad cartoon women
945:
I don't think this article rises to the standards of
927:
but I don't see why such an attack URL should exist.
293:
is a bit disengenius to how actually policy sees it.
1914:
That depends whether the criticism was of his shirt
829:
to highlight and clarify the issues in the article.
507:
Urgh, too many windows open, wrong Guardian article
1468:. Also, thanks for coming back to the talk page.
1172:
Going round and round on who initially took offense
412:Thank you for pointing this out, I have solved it.
1624:unless we have a reliable outside source for it.
919:. I haven't fully investigated the sources, but
852:, or is it just a very small footnote for the
1644:This was I think the 7th backlash against ...
1455:. This is also why I am uneasy about having
8:
1986:science journalists Rose Eveleth and Ed Yong
1019:and therefore doesn't meet the standards of
250:the controversy, not take a position in it.
1705:Miscellaneous nits and proposed minor edits
243:Knowledge:Reliable sources and undue weight
1891:Taylor's choice of clothing drew criticism
213:http://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/
1955:In the Background section we now mention
1464:. Please keep the discussion here about
1269:although I did not examine it at the time
125:Saying "some women" took offence is wrong
103:on 20 November 2014 (UTC). The result of
1982:science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth
1957:science writers Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth
385:
721:
1985:
1981:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1933:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1822:
1801:
1737:
1733:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1568:. Arguably the "kill yourself" tweet
1561:
1456:
1440:
1405:
1353:
1349:
1330:
827:Knowledge:WikiProject Inline Templates
290:
7:
1963:. I propose changing the latter to
1648:Rose got a full line in the text ...
810:Knowledge:Tagging pages for problems
45:Because this page is not frequently
905:
875:however it should be a footnote on
78:is maintained in order to preserve
1114:BLP issues and preparing for merge
49:, present and future discussions,
14:
1436:What? I'm the person pushing to
1276:of the weasel words and link the
959:2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541
1856:
1773:
1652:OK, it seems I was not clear ...
92:
19:
1934:became a subject of controversy
1457:which she described as "sexist"
172:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
99:This article was nominated for
1306:"a number of commentators" in
1118:The emerging consensus on the
783:Sourcing and Original Research
1:
1998:00:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1976:00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1946:23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1928:09:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1907:08:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1895:Taylor's shirt drew criticism
1874:02:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1850:23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1835:10:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1814:08:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1791:00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1767:10:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1750:08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1729:08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1700:02:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1680:17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
1664:00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1634:00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1613:16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
1598:00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1554:00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1539:08:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1521:19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1505:19:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1478:23:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1428:08:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1404:I'd still like to get rid of
1396:08:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1381:07:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1367:07:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1344:06:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1324:04:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
1240:"many women in science" from
1205:first version edited for NPOV
1167:00:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
1148:23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
1108:11:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1087:10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1072:10:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1057:10:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1037:06:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
1006:08:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
989:09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
967:08:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
937:06:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
910:05:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
892:04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
867:03:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
839:23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
821:23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
804:22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
712:04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
682:22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
668:18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
653:18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
638:18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
619:17:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
605:17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
590:17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
566:09:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
551:08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
536:19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
521:19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
503:18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
485:19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
465:18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
446:19:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
422:17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
408:17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
378:01:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
359:00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
339:18:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
316:18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
274:15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
260:14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
225:07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
207:23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
164:19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
144:17:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
1329:The previous wording stated
1246:"some people" when that was
1222:"some people" after another
427:Added references to reaction
1299:"Ed Yong and Rose Eveleth"
2013:
1771:Thank you; edit applied.
1274:decided to put it in place
971:The article seems to meet
1959:, yet in Backlash we say
1564:from an item posted to a
1216:"radical feminists" from
1190:"Social Justice Warriors"
38:and now targets the page:
1684:
1441:a number of commentators
1406:a number of commentators
1280:to stimulate discussion
74:Merged page edit history
1200:and plagiarism problems
925:Matt Taylor (scientist)
178:Knowledge:Verifiability
111:Matt Taylor (scientist)
1234:"some feminists" from
1203:"some women" from the
1153:Reliability of sources
453:synthesize the sources
390:So instead of showing
1800:The source given for
1580:is a self-published,
61:should take place at:
1025:Internet vigilantism
329:WP page about this.
1980:I propose changing
1827:NorthBySouthBaranof
1759:NorthBySouthBaranof
1373:NorthBySouthBaranof
1336:NorthBySouthBaranof
881:Philae (spacecraft)
854:Philae (spacecraft)
66:Talk:Online shaming
1258:"some people" was
1186:female chauvinists
787:Please don't post
660:Rotatingastrothing
630:Rotatingastrothing
597:Rotatingastrothing
582:Rotatingastrothing
528:Rotatingastrothing
513:Rotatingastrothing
477:Rotatingastrothing
438:Rotatingastrothing
60:
54:
1418:dropped nearby.
1354:"science writers"
1182:radical feminists
825:I propose to use
187:original research
118:
117:
87:
86:
56:
50:
2004:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1718:
1712:
1417:
1411:
1282:on the talk page
1194:an early version
907:
902:
775:
770:
764:
759:
753:
748:
742:
737:
731:
726:
700:WP:Point of view
327:Radical feminism
299:Radical_feminist
96:
89:
76:
23:
16:
2012:
2011:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1885:Can we shorten
1857:
1855:
1774:
1772:
1716:
1710:
1709:Please use the
1707:
1687:
1492:
1462:WP:NPOV dispute
1415:
1409:
1293:"feminists" in
1286:"commentators"
1174:
1155:
1136:loaded language
1116:
1044:
846:
785:
780:
779:
778:
771:
767:
760:
756:
749:
745:
738:
734:
727:
723:
429:
388:
127:
72:
58:requested moves
12:
11:
5:
2010:
2008:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1706:
1703:
1686:
1683:
1667:
1666:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1443:because it is
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1311:
1310:
1304:
1297:
1291:
1284:
1270:
1263:
1256:
1250:
1244:
1238:
1232:
1226:
1220:
1214:
1208:
1201:
1173:
1170:
1154:
1151:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1089:
1043:
1040:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
969:
940:
939:
859:Iamcuriousblue
845:
842:
784:
781:
777:
776:
765:
754:
743:
732:
720:
719:
715:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
553:
523:
428:
425:
387:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
362:
361:
342:
341:
319:
318:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
182:
126:
123:
116:
115:
105:the discussion
97:
85:
84:
69:
62:
44:
42:Online shaming
39:
34:that has been
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2009:
2000:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1990:70.133.154.32
1987:
1983:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1968:70.133.154.32
1966:
1962:
1958:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1938:70.133.154.32
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1899:70.133.154.32
1896:
1892:
1888:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1866:70.133.154.32
1863:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:70.133.154.32
1838:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1806:70.133.154.32
1803:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1783:70.133.154.32
1780:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:70.133.154.32
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1721:70.133.154.32
1715:
1704:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:70.133.154.32
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:70.133.154.32
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1626:70.133.154.32
1623:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:70.133.154.32
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1546:70.133.154.32
1542:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1489:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:70.133.154.32
1467:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:70.133.154.32
1414:
1407:
1403:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:70.133.154.32
1384:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1359:70.133.154.32
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:70.133.154.32
1309:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1262:as "weaselly"
1261:
1257:
1255:
1254:began editing
1251:
1249:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1225:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1196:with serious
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:70.133.154.32
1152:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:70.133.154.32
1137:
1134:. Watch for
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:proves this.
1026:
1022:
1021:WP:Notability
1018:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:Now nominated
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
979:
978:WP:Notability
974:
973:WP:Notability
970:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
908:
903:
901:
894:
893:
889:
885:
882:
878:
874:
869:
868:
864:
860:
855:
851:
843:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
823:
822:
818:
814:
811:
806:
805:
801:
797:
794:
790:
782:
774:
769:
766:
763:
758:
755:
752:
747:
744:
741:
736:
733:
730:
725:
722:
718:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
567:
563:
559:
554:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
426:
424:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
379:
375:
371:
370:70.133.154.32
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
351:70.133.154.32
347:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
239:
238:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
189:
188:
183:
180:
179:
174:
173:
168:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
152:
146:
145:
141:
137:
131:
124:
122:
121:
113:
112:
106:
102:
98:
95:
91:
90:
83:
81:
77:
75:
68:
67:
59:
53:
52:edit requests
48:
43:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1979:
1954:
1915:
1884:
1861:
1799:
1778:
1732:
1708:
1688:
1668:
1622:WP:SYNTHESIS
1585:
1569:
1493:
1453:WP:TERRORIST
1437:
1432:
1312:
1308:this version
1295:this version
1242:this version
1236:this version
1230:this version
1218:this version
1212:this version
1189:
1185:
1184:also called
1181:
1175:
1156:
1117:
1091:Please read
1060:
1045:
1014:
899:
895:
870:
847:
824:
807:
786:
768:
757:
746:
735:
724:
716:
696:
578:
430:
411:
389:
345:
331:74.12.93.242
322:
304:WP:RSOPINION
286:
247:
241:
235:
230:
192:
185:
176:
170:
147:
132:
128:
120:
119:
108:
80:attributions
71:
70:
64:
26:This is the
1566:WP:NEWSBLOG
1124:Matt Taylor
1042:New Changes
877:Matt Taylor
844:Notability?
394:it is only
1893:, or even
1582:WP:PRIMARY
1578:WP:TWITTER
1466:Shirtstorm
1303:(my doing)
1301:citing NPR
1288:instead of
1132:WP:SOURCES
951:WP:NOTNEWS
947:notability
921:WP:NOTNEWS
873:WP:NOTABLE
850:WP:NOTABLE
717:References
252:-- Rrburke
199:-- Rrburke
194:"See also"
1586:secondary
1267:was added
1224:NPOV edit
1029:DuusieDos
906:Pls No H8
884:DuusieDos
704:DuusieDos
295:WP:BIASED
197:section.
109:merge to
28:talk page
1920:Ghmyrtle
1757:Agreed.
1714:cite web
1672:Helester
1605:Helester
1531:Helester
1513:Helester
1497:Helester
1449:weaselly
1445:WP:VAGUE
1248:reverted
1079:Ghmyrtle
1064:Helester
1049:Helester
998:Ghmyrtle
929:Johnuniq
674:Helester
645:Helester
611:Helester
558:Helester
543:Helester
495:Tutelary
457:Tutelary
414:Helester
400:Jeroen52
308:Tutelary
266:Helester
248:describe
237:WP:UNDUE
217:Helester
156:Helester
136:Helester
101:deletion
32:redirect
1734:"busty"
1278:article
1260:flagged
1198:WP:NPOV
1192:" from
1128:WP:NPOV
949:, also
900:DSA510
491:WP:BOLD
346:Comment
323:Comment
287:Comment
47:watched
1916:per se
1438:remove
1100:09I500
1097:WP:IRS
1093:WP:SRC
1017:WP:NOT
981:09I500
955:WP:AFD
917:WP:AFD
831:09I500
813:09I500
796:09I500
793:WP:SRC
36:merged
789:WP:OR
30:of a
1994:talk
1972:talk
1942:talk
1924:talk
1903:talk
1870:talk
1862:Done
1846:talk
1831:talk
1810:talk
1787:talk
1779:Done
1763:talk
1746:talk
1725:talk
1696:talk
1676:talk
1660:talk
1630:talk
1609:talk
1594:talk
1574:GIFT
1550:talk
1535:talk
1517:talk
1501:talk
1474:talk
1447:and
1424:talk
1392:talk
1377:talk
1363:talk
1340:talk
1320:talk
1163:talk
1144:talk
1130:and
1104:talk
1095:and
1083:talk
1068:talk
1053:talk
1033:talk
1002:talk
985:talk
963:talk
933:talk
888:talk
879:not
863:talk
835:talk
817:talk
800:talk
708:talk
678:talk
664:talk
649:talk
634:talk
615:talk
601:talk
586:talk
562:talk
547:talk
532:talk
517:talk
499:talk
481:talk
461:talk
442:talk
418:talk
404:talk
374:talk
355:talk
335:talk
312:talk
270:talk
256:talk
231:Time
229:The
221:talk
203:talk
160:talk
140:talk
107:was
55:and
1984:to
1936:?
1897:?
1889:to
1740:?
1413:who
1188:or
1120:AfD
996:.
63:•
40:•
1996:)
1974:)
1944:)
1926:)
1905:)
1872:)
1848:)
1833:)
1812:)
1789:)
1765:)
1748:)
1727:)
1717:}}
1711:{{
1698:)
1678:)
1662:)
1632:)
1611:)
1596:)
1570:is
1552:)
1537:)
1519:)
1503:)
1476:)
1426:)
1416:}}
1410:{{
1394:)
1379:)
1365:)
1342:)
1322:)
1165:)
1146:)
1106:)
1085:)
1070:)
1055:)
1035:)
1004:)
987:)
965:)
957:.
935:)
890:)
865:)
837:)
819:)
802:)
710:)
680:)
666:)
651:)
636:)
628:--
617:)
603:)
588:)
564:)
549:)
534:)
519:)
501:)
483:)
463:)
444:)
420:)
406:)
376:)
357:)
337:)
314:)
272:)
258:)
240:,
223:)
205:)
162:)
142:)
1992:(
1970:(
1940:(
1922:(
1901:(
1868:(
1844:(
1829:(
1808:(
1785:(
1761:(
1744:(
1723:(
1694:(
1674:(
1658:(
1628:(
1607:(
1592:(
1548:(
1533:(
1515:(
1499:(
1472:(
1422:(
1390:(
1375:(
1361:(
1338:(
1318:(
1180:"
1161:(
1142:(
1102:(
1081:(
1066:(
1051:(
1031:(
1000:(
983:(
961:(
931:(
886:(
861:(
833:(
815:(
798:(
706:(
676:(
662:(
647:(
632:(
613:(
599:(
584:(
560:(
545:(
530:(
515:(
497:(
479:(
459:(
440:(
416:(
402:(
372:(
353:(
333:(
310:(
268:(
254:(
219:(
201:(
158:(
138:(
114:.
82:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
